In a high-stakes First Amendment clash unfolding in federal court, veteran free-speech attorney Marc J. Randazza has stepped into the spotlight representing defendant Dan Kleinman in a lawsuit brought by librarian and author Amanda Jones. Randazza’s filing leverages New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) — the state’s anti-SLAPP statute — arguing that the claims against Kleinman are improper attempts to chill public debate.
Kleinman is the director of the “Safe Libraries” project. He has identified books that he thinks are harmful to minors and that he thinks should not be accessible to minors without explicit parental consent. At issue in this case are books that have graphic representations of oral sex, anal sex, and other explicit content.
Jones’ position is that people like Kleinman are seeking to “ban” books, and their efforts should be rejected.
“Mr. Kleinman has never sought to ban a single book,” said Randazza. “Kleinman looks at books that have graphic depictions of how to use anal butt plugs and are still recommended to 14-year-olds and wants to express his disapproval of that.”
“We are all free to agree with Kleinman or to agree with Jones, but neither of them should be subject to a lawsuit because they’re upset with the other’s opinion,” he said. “Maybe Ms. Jones is right. Maybe there is nothing wrong with minors reading comic books that depict this kind of sexual conduct,” he added. “But you should be free to shout as loudly as you like if you think that letting kids have access to this is a bit messed up.”
Randazza, managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group, is a First Amendment attorney whose practice includes defamation and free speech litigation, censorship, and SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) conflicts. His firm represents high-profile clients in free-speech disputes and intellectual property matters, and Randazza himself has decades of experience handling similar anti-SLAPP defenses nationwide.
The Core of the Motion
The motion, filed on behalf of Kleinman under New Jersey’s UPEPA on November 3, 2025, seeks judgment on the pleadings, essentially asking the court to dismiss Jones’s lawsuit before costly discovery or trial. Kleinman, a vocal critic of what he views as harmful library materials for children, contends that his statements about Jones and her advocacy fall squarely within protected public discourse.
“Kleinman’s position is that there is no legitimate reason to provide kids with comic books that instruct a minor on the use of butt plugs or how to give a blowjob,” said Randazza. “Suing him for expressing that opinion does great violence to the First Amendment.”
Randazza’s brief frames the case as a textbook example of a SLAPP suit: rather than addressing substantive falsity, the complaint targets speech on matters of public concern and threatens to impose legal costs on a defendant for engaging in open debate. Under the UPEPA, courts must protect such speech and can award defendants attorney’s fees when plaintiffs cannot show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
Randazza’s Role and Reputation
Randazza’s involvement positions the case at the intersection of national free-speech law and cultural conflict. A seasoned First Amendment lawyer, he has represented defendants in SLAPP actions, protestors, media entities, and other speech-related cases throughout his career. Prior to founding Randazza Legal Group, he worked as a journalist and later earned a fellowship focused on First Amendment rights. He has also taught First Amendment, copyright, trademark, and entertainment law at Barry University School of Law.
His practice focuses on First Amendment and expressive-rights litigation, including matters that receive public attention. Randazza’s reputation in the free-speech community and his firm’s specialty in anti-SLAPP tactics signal that Kleinman’s defense will be aggressive and deeply rooted in constitutional advocacy.
What’s at Stake
Jones’s lawsuit alleges defamation, false light, and interference with economic relationships, claiming that Kleinman’s public criticism damaged her reputation. But Randazza’s motion argues these statements are opinion and rhetorical expression, not actionable legal wrongs, and that Jones cannot meet the high standard required to prove actual malice in a defamation claim involving a public figure.
The outcome of this motion has implications beyond the parties involved. A ruling in Kleinman’s favor could send a strong message about the robustness of anti-SLAPP protections in New Jersey and reinforce protections for vigorous public debate on contentious issues, from school library books to broader public policy.
Next Steps
The case remains pending as the Court ponders whether Kleinman’s First Amendment rights should be upheld or curtailed. Given the national interest in debates over censorship, free expression, and SLAPP litigation, legal observers anticipate that Randazza’s involvement will draw further attention from First Amendment advocates and media commentators alike.